Posted on 09/23/2026 9:43:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The book of Enoch has become increasingly popular among Christians in recent years. It is easy to understand the fascination. Reading the book of Enoch can sometimes feel like reading a science-fiction novel. Its elaborate accounts of fallen angels, giants, heavenly journeys, and the coming judgment naturally capture the imagination.
More importantly, New Testament authors such as Peter and Jude draw on traditions also found in the book of Enoch. For students of Scripture, the book provides valuable insight into the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism and can illuminate the historical and literary background of the New Testament.
But some Christians have gone much further. They argue that the book of Enoch is not merely interesting ancient Jewish literature but inspired Scripture that belongs in the Bible.
So, how should followers of Jesus approach the book of Enoch? Should we really consider it inspired Scripture, on par with Genesis, Isaiah, and Daniel?
In my book, Pseudo-Scripture: Why 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher Are Not Inspired Scripture, I examine this question in much greater detail.
When it comes to the book of Enoch, I believe there are three compelling reasons Christians should not consider it inspired Scripture.
1. Jesus did not consider the book of Enoch Scripture
Contrary to popular claims that the book of Enoch was “removed from the Bible,” there is no evidence that it ever belonged to the Jewish biblical canon in the first place.
By the first century, Jewish Scripture was recognized according to the familiar threefold division of the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Josephus, writing near the end of the first century, describes a fixed collection of 22 sacred books that Jews regarded as divinely authoritative. He distinguishes these books from later writings that were not considered to have the same authority (Against Apion 1.37–42). Notably, Josephus also begins his list with the five books of Moses. If he believed Enoch had written an inspired book centuries before Moses, we would expect him to include it before the books of Moses. However, the book of Enoch is nowhere mentioned.
More importantly for Christians, Jesus affirmed this same basic understanding of Scripture.
After his resurrection, Jesus told his disciples that everything written about him “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Luke immediately identifies this collection as “the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45). This corresponds to the traditional threefold Jewish canon — the Law, Prophets, and Writings.
Likewise, Jesus frequently appealed to “the Scriptures” in his disputes with other Jews (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39). The apostles did the same (Acts 17:2, 11). Yet neither Jesus nor his apostles ever disputed with their Jewish contemporaries over which books constituted Scripture. That silence is significant considering how readily they challenged prevailing Jewish opinions on other matters.
If the book of Enoch really belonged in Scripture but the Jewish community had wrongly excluded it, we would expect Jesus to correct them. Instead, he affirmed the Scriptures they already recognized.
For Christians, Jesus’s judgment concerning what constitutes Scripture ought to carry considerably more weight than the opinions of modern internet personalities.
2. The book of Enoch identifies Enoch as the Messiah
There is an even more serious problem.
The section of the book of Enoch known as the book of Parables (chapters 37–71) describes an exalted Messianic figure called the “Son of Man,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One,” and “Anointed One.” This figure brings salvation, sits upon a throne of glory, judges mankind, and receives universal worship.
Understandably, Christians who believe the book of Enoch is inspired often assume these passages are prophecies about Jesus.
But there is just one problem: the book of Enoch eventually tells us who this figure is. It is Enoch himself.
In chapter 71, Enoch is taken into Heaven, where the “Head of Days” comes to him accompanied by Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and innumerable angels. Enoch is then told: “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you” (book of Enoch 71:14).
Thus, the book of Parables identifies Enoch with the Messianic Son of Man described throughout the preceding visions.
Some defenders of the book of Enoch appeal to R. H. Charles’ old translation, which renders the statement, “This is the Son of Man,” making it appear that Enoch is being introduced to someone else.
But that is not what the Ethiopic text says. The Geʽez contains the second-person pronoun meaning “you.” Indeed, Charles himself acknowledged in his notes that the text actually reads, “Thou art.” He deliberately emended the passage because he believed the text should say something different. Subsequent scholars have rejected that emendation because it has no manuscript support.
For followers of Jesus, this creates an obvious theological problem. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messianic Son of Man and explicitly warns believers against accepting rival messianic claims (Matt. 24:23).
Christians cannot accept a book that identifies Enoch as the Messiah.
3. Jews and Christians historically rejected the book of Enoch as Scripture
If the book of Enoch belongs in the Bible, why did the communities responsible for preserving the Scriptures overwhelmingly reject it?
Jewish tradition never included the book of Enoch in the Tanakh. Early Christian writers likewise repeatedly affirmed an Old Testament canon that excluded it.
Origen, for instance, was familiar with Enochic literature but acknowledged that these books were not considered authoritative among the Jews. Even more explicitly, he wrote that “the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine” (Contra Celsum 5.54). Later Christian writers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, and Jerome likewise affirmed canonical lists excluding the book of Enoch.
There were exceptions. Tertullian accepted the book of Enoch, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church preserves it in its broader canon. But Tertullian himself acknowledged opposition to his position among other Christians. The historical evidence simply does not support the popular narrative that the book of Enoch was accepted as Scripture until someone later removed it from the Bible.
But doesn’t Jude quote the book of Enoch?
This is probably the strongest objection.
Jude 14–15 undeniably contains material also found in the book of Enoch, and Peter likewise draws upon Enochic traditions (1 Pet. 3:19–20; 2 Pet. 2:4). Does that prove that the apostles considered the book of Enoch inspired?
No, it does not.
First, the book of Enoch is not a single work written at one time. It is a collection of writings composed and compiled over centuries. Jude’s and Peter’s references are associated with the book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36), not every section of the collection now called the book of Enoch. Their use of those traditions therefore cannot establish the inspiration of the entire book.
More importantly, quoting a source does not canonize it. Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17:28 and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Nobody concludes that the works of Aratus and Epimenides therefore belong in the Bible.
The same principle applies to Jude. His use of an Enochic tradition can tell us that he considered that particular tradition useful and true without requiring us to believe that every text collected under the title “book of Enoch” was divinely inspired.
The value of the book of Enoch
None of this means that Christians should be afraid of the book of Enoch.
Quite the opposite. It is an important ancient Jewish work that helps us better understand the religious and intellectual world in which the New Testament was written. Christians interested in biblical studies can profit from reading it.
But appreciating an ancient text is not the same thing as recognizing it as Scripture. The historical evidence indicates that the book of Enoch originated in the Second Temple period rather than with the patriarch Enoch himself. Jesus affirmed a Jewish canon that did not contain it. One section identifies Enoch as the Messianic Son of Man. And Jews and Christians throughout history overwhelmingly declined to recognize it as inspired Scripture.
So read the book of Enoch. Just don’t add it to your Bible.
David Wilber is an author, Bible teacher, and CEO of Pronomian Publishing LLC. He has written several books and theological articles and has spoken at churches and conferences across the country. David’s articles, teaching videos, and debates are available at DavidWilber.com.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Bfl
Enoch is not the Word of God. It is not Biblical.
Having said that, Enoch (and specifically 1 Enoch) was a work that was read and studied by early Jews and authors of the Old Testament. The first few books of the Bible almost assume the reader is familiar with Enoch.
We read all sorts of commentary on the Bible these days and I would read Enoch (and some of the other Dead Sea Scrolls) in the same frame of mind.
The author of this article rightly points out that the Book of Enoch advances the damnable heresy that Enoch, himself, is the Messiah.
Thus, it should be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (for Catholics), and no good Christian should touch it.
Regards,
Never read it, but there are soo many books like that.
Both old and new testament writings.
I read the gospel of Thomas, and a whole bunch of other books from the Nag Hamadi find.
It is quite interesting and supposedly contains even some authentical sayings of Jesus, which are not in the Canonical gospels.
Yet, reading it, it is obvious that it is Gospel-like human writing, not inspired by the Holly Spirit.
And the other books, I have read, are even worse.
I am not theologian, and it is hard to describe why, but I can just feel which book is Divine inspired and which is not!
I suspect that Book of Enoch is just like that.
Interesting writing, but not inspired by the Holy Spirit!
In reference to your last sentence, are you saying that. in your opinion, Catholics are not “good Christians?”
Just asking the question. I have heard of some people who believe Catholics are not good Christians, mainly because we seem to elevate Mary, mother of Christ, to a spiritual level that is on the same plane as Christ. I consider that a mere difference of prayerful expression.
Enoch was completely lost to the West. It disappeared. Later a copy was found in Ethiopian in the Ethiopian Church. It is interesting. But, I don’t believe anyone truly thinks that Noah’s Great Grandfather wrote it and Noah carried it on the Ark.
The Author’s claim that the apostles used quotes from the Book of the Watchers only(Chapters 1-36) and not the book/part where Enoch is called the “son of man” reflects a theory I have that Parts of the book might have been truth but have had falsity appended to them due to traditions and time.
One could make an argument that keeps the Book of the Watchers only as possibly inspired or even historically true and discards the rest. You probably wouldn’t include it as full scripture but you wouldn’t disregard it. 1 Maccabees, for example is regarded as generally historical, 2 maccabees is questionable in its facts and more suspect in its mysticism.
“ The author of this article rightly points out that the Book of Enoch advances the damnable heresy that Enoch, himself, is the Messiah.”
Absolutely correct on the main point that the work known as the “book of Enoch” contains heresy on this issue.
With the caveat that the “book” of Enoch is not a book. It’s a collection of writings by different authors from different times. Apparently some are valid and much is not. Separation of the heretic writings from the valid (eg portins relied on by the canon) is thus difficult if not impossible.
“ The author of this article rightly points out that the Book of Enoch advances the damnable heresy that Enoch, himself, is the Messiah.”
Absolutely correct on the main point that the work known as the “book of Enoch” contains heresy on this issue.
With the caveat that the “book” of Enoch is not a book. It’s a collection of writings by different authors from different times. Apparently some are valid and much is not. Separation of the heretic writings from the valid (eg portins relied on by the canon) is thus difficult if not impossible.
By no means did I wish to imply that! In fact, I was speaking from the standpoint of a Catholic! Perhaps I should have used "non-Catholic" in place of "good," but that would have sounded overly technical - as well as destroying the sentence cadence.
To be clear: The "last sentence" in question was as follows:
Thus, it should be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (for Catholics), and no good Christian should touch it.In response, let me first quote from Wikipedia (perhaps not the best of sources - but good enough for my purposes, so please bear with me):
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: Index of Forbidden Books) was a changing list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (a former dicastery of the Roman Curia); Catholics were forbidden to print or read them, subject to the local bishop.[Emphasis my own.]
So, clearly, the Index is binding only for Catholics; for other Christians, it is not binding. So when invoking it, I was forced to differentiate. I guess that I should have instead written:
Thus, it should be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (for Catholics), and further - independent of that - no good (lay) Christian regardless of his denomination should touch it.I've also now included the word "lay," since, of course, serious scholars might still wish to obtain permission from higher ecclesiastical authority to peruse its pages, for advanced theological purposes.
Have I succeeded in dispelling your concerns?
In any event: I thank you for reminding me that I should be more careful in formulating my thoughts!
Regards,
Early translators like R.H. Charles argued the text was corrupted and originally read in the third person (”This is the Son of Man...”), meaning Enoch was looking at a separate Messiah figure. While modern scholarship leans toward the literal second-person translation (”You are the Son of Man”), it remains a point of academic debate.
Thanks for explaining.
well, not only “the West” — the Eastern Orthodox and (I think) the Copts and the Assyrians don’t have it either.
After the 4th and 5th centuries, as the early Church finalized the biblical canon, 1 Enoch was widely rejected by Western (Roman) and Eastern (Byzantine) Christianity. Over the next millennium, the physical text completely vanished from Europe and the Middle East.
I think Ethiopian theologians interpret the passage as addressing Enoch as “a son of man”—meaning a mere mortal or human being. In this view, the angel is comforting a terrified Enoch by saying, “You are a human born to righteousness...” this mirrors how God addresses the prophet Ezekiel over 90 times in the Old Testament as “son of man” (ben-adam) to contrast Ezekiel’s fragile humanity with God’s glory.
But I don’t know enough of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to say more - I should read up on them - I know a bit (only a tad) more on the Ancient Church of the East which I find fascinating.
Like I mentioned, there are virtually hundreds of old writs.
Some are very old, some contain lots of information, some of the information is not found in Canonical Scriptures.
And that all understandable.
Bible did not grew in vacuum, e.g Jesus spent three years of preaching, it is obvious that Canonical Scripture does not contain all what he had said. So somewhere, somebody could write down some his sayings which did not made it to the Bible.
That does mean that this, maybe authentical writ, should be treated like a scripture.
What make Bible the Bible is its completeness as far as source of faith.
Christian does need to know anything besides the Bible.
The Bible is the writ inspired by the Holy Spirit and the full source of our Faith.
Everything besides it is an interesting information, for the historians and theologians to study and write papers.
Book of Enoch obviously falls in that category!
Alex, thanks for explaining.
here are my thoughts - “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!”
You are correct that if someone has no background or an inquisitive mind, they would take the text without thinking.
“I am not theologian, and it is hard to describe why, but I can just feel which book is Divine inspired and which is not!”
I think you may be mixing up causation and correlation
- would you have said that the Gospel of Thomas was NOT divinely inspired if you didn’t already know what should be canon?
- would you have said that the Song of Solomon IS divinely inspired if you didn’t already know what should be canon?
the “I feel” is what Joseph Smith used, and is not a good way to define canon.
p
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.